Schultz v NSW Land and Housing Commission [2015] NSWCATAP 35

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Schultz v NSW Land and Housing Commission [2015] NSWCATAP 35 Hearing dates: Appeal determined on the papers Date of orders: 09 March 2015 Decision date: 09 March 2015 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: D Patten, Principal Member R C Titterton, Principal Member Decision: Leave to appeal refused Appeal dismissed Catchwords: Appeal - Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NSW) Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act NSW (2013) Cases Cited: BHP Billiton Ltd v Dunning Collins v Urban [2014] NSWCATAP 17 Nakad v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2014] NSWCATAP 10 Pholi v Wearne [2014] NSWCATAP 78 Texts Cited: Not applicable Category: Principal judgment Parties: Russell Kenneth Schultz (appellant) NSW Land and Housing Commission (respondent) Representation: Not applicable File Number(s): AP 14/46551 Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Date of Decision: 28 August 2014 Before: M Cohen File Number(s): SH 14/31096

reasons for decision

Introduction 1. In this matter the appellant seeks to appeal against a decision of a member sitting in the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Tribunal (the Tribunal). The appellant sought an order that he be provided with a copy of the security key so as to enable access to the fuse box located in the common area of the unit complex in which he lived. He sought the order so that he, along with other residents, could have access to restore power in the event of a blown fuse or tripped isolation switch. 2. On 28 August 2014 the Tribunal dismissed his application. The Tribunal considered that the application was seeking a purely hypothetical or advisory opinion from the Tribunal, which was beyond its power to order. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had spent a considerable amount of time in preparing and presenting material upon which the application was founded. The Tribunal stated that as the appellant indicated that he may wish to appeal from its decision, it would indicate why, even if the Tribunal had power to make the order, why such an order would have been refused in the exercise of the Tribunal's discretion. 3. This is a matter in which the appellant requires the leave of the appeal panel for the appeal to proceed. For the reasons below, we consider that leave to appeal should be refused, and that the appeal should be dismissed.